private planes lower housing prices

More crap.... More delusion... More PPL BS.

You don't need a "study" to realize the obvious: continuous airplane noise
harrassment lowers property values. So what if the price near the airport
has increased. Homes everywhere have increased, just not as much in areas
infected with plane noise pollution.

But if you want a study, here's one...

http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/taxloss.html

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
More crap.... More delusion... More PPL BS.

You don't need a "study" to realize the obvious: continuous airplane noise
harrassment lowers property values. So what if the price near the airport
has increased. Homes everywhere have increased, just not as much in areas
infected with plane noise pollution.

But if you want a study, here's one...

http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/taxloss.html


There is nothing in the GA fleet as loud as what used to fly out of El Toro.

So?

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" plucked a fig, smoked some dope
and converted another booger from his nose to digital:

http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/taxloss.html

Quote:"Several studies confirm that real estate values are negatively
impacted near the flight paths of major airports."

Note the term "major airports." i.e. JKF, ORD, LAX, etc.

Once again the anti-aviation loons distort facts and outright lie to
bolster their (weak) case against GA. They quote studies of major het
airports and try to use them against minor, GA airports.

In common terms: "That dog just don't hunt!"

In article ,
says...


Note the term "major airports." i.e. JKF, ORD, LAX, etc.

Once again the anti-aviation loons distort facts and outright lie to
bolster their (weak) case against GA. They quote studies of major het
airports and try to use them against minor, GA airports.



Welll. . . If you're going to be honest about it, both major, commercial
airports AND GA airports bring significant nuisance effects to surrounding
communities. True enough, most of the well organized anti-airport lobbies
deal with issues related to major airports, who, with their day-and-night
activities and thousand flight-a-day schedules have the effect of wearing
through the nerves of close residents. It's hard to pity them, because
100% of them moved there after the airport activity was well established,
often BECAUSE of the airport, one way or another, and they'll move away
when they've had enough. Besides - do they think they're going to close
ORD, just because they have a 6-month old baby?

BUT - GA airports have been targeted by opposition groups as well, and the
case is more delicate, because most people see GA activity as
recreational, and not revenue generating or otherwise necessary. Of
course, this is as much a distortion of the facts as the plane
enthusiasts' version of it, but the bottom line is times ARE changing, and
GA pilots are going to have to make efforts to fit better into their
communities. There are many ways to try to lessen the noise impact of a GA
airport on surrounding communities, but the ostrich method is one of the
less successful.

Educating the community about the full role of GA in the community/economy
is important, but in some cases it's not enough. Some citizens' groups
are contributing toward noise-reduction equipment on airplanes. Some
airports have specific, noise-abatement traffic patterns, others restrict
hours. The old, "I was here first, and it's my RIGHT" isn't going to cut
it much longer. One crash, and it becomes a safety issue, then the GA
airport, and its irascible users is gone.

G Faris

Great, now I know where to shop if I ever need to live out there.

I'm always trying to find property closer to airports.....


wrote in message
ups.com...
Home prices in most of the San Francisco Bay area
have reached new high's, except in one city, but
there is a catch.

The city of Newark has many people moving out, and many
nice homes for sale after months of being on the market.

Why, you may ask?

It is because of the constant drone of private planes
using the airspace above Newark as their playground.

Most of the flights originate from the Palo Alto airport,
right across the bay, where they have a gentlemens
agreement about not flying over Palo Alto.

Prospective homeowners are told up front about the
"noise condition" they will have to live with, and
many, after hearing plane, after plane, after plane
would never live there at any price.

In article ,
Greg Farris wrote:

In article ,
says...


Note the term "major airports." i.e. JKF, ORD, LAX, etc.

Once again the anti-aviation loons distort facts and outright lie to
bolster their (weak) case against GA. They quote studies of major het
airports and try to use them against minor, GA airports.



Welll. . . If you're going to be honest about it, both major, commercial
airports AND GA airports bring significant nuisance effects to surrounding
communities. True enough, most of the well organized anti-airport lobbies
deal with issues related to major airports, who, with their day-and-night
activities and thousand flight-a-day schedules have the effect of wearing
through the nerves of close residents. It's hard to pity them, because
100% of them moved there after the airport activity was well established,
often BECAUSE of the airport, one way or another, and they'll move away
when they've had enough. Besides - do they think they're going to close
ORD, just because they have a 6-month old baby?

BUT - GA airports have been targeted by opposition groups as well, and the
case is more delicate, because most people see GA activity as
recreational, and not revenue generating or otherwise necessary. Of
course, this is as much a distortion of the facts as the plane
enthusiasts' version of it, but the bottom line is times ARE changing, and
GA pilots are going to have to make efforts to fit better into their
communities. There are many ways to try to lessen the noise impact of a GA
airport on surrounding communities, but the ostrich method is one of the
less successful.

Educating the community about the full role of GA in the community/economy
is important, but in some cases it's not enough. Some citizens' groups
are contributing toward noise-reduction equipment on airplanes. Some
airports have specific, noise-abatement traffic patterns, others restrict
hours. The old, "I was here first, and it's my RIGHT" isn't going to cut
it much longer. One crash, and it becomes a safety issue, then the GA
airport, and its irascible users is gone.

G Faris


The unseen agenda in most of the anti-GA airports is that of developers,
who covertly funnel money into the "community" groups, in hopes of
closing an airport and getting a nice, large, level, parcel on which to
build houses and commercial buildings.

The developers have come out into the open in Concord, CA, Hawthorne,
CA, and Atlantic City, NJ, where they brazenly state that THEY can
provide more "public benefit" (read: taxes) than the public benefit of a
nice GA Airport.

Of course, we then have the issue of Meigs, where a corrupt city
administration lets expensive contracts to their campaign supporters to
steal and destroy the airport in the middle of the night.

"Welll. . . If you're going to be honest about it, both major, commercial

airports AND GA airports bring significant nuisance effects to
surrounding

communities."

Of course this is true. But he will not be "honest" about it. The
"nuisance effects" you refer to somehow never make their way into the
economic studies either. I say again: (1) Regulation of noise (or
enforcement of noise abatement) is virtually nonexistent at some GA
airports and (2) self-righteous pilots who simply don't give a damn are a
growing danger to your passion. They spawn Skylunes, and organizations
that will spend time and money to fight back.

Pilots and airport sponsors need to take the lead in policing their own,
as the FAA is hopelessly compromised in their conflicting missions.

LOL. A "vast anti-GA conspiracy" maybe?? I hope you are correct, but this
is out there.

Provide evidence of covert funneling of money by developers to anti GA
groups. I believe there are probably developers who have made
redevelopment arguments (the "brazen statements"). But guess what? If
the airports haven't accepted the pact with the devil (i.e. the FAA
grants), the local community or private airstrip owner has discretion over
their property.

As far as Megis: which contractor received the contract to "steal and
destroy" the airport. Daley has for years publicly stated his intention
to close down Megis, then he did it. (After Boyer "took him on." LOL) The
people of Chicago elected him knowing of his plans to bulldoze that
airport.

wrote:
John Clear wrote:

In article . com,
wrote:

The city of Newark has many people moving out, and many
nice homes for sale after months of being on the market.

Why, you may ask?

It is because of the constant drone of private planes
using the airspace above Newark as their playground.

So is the noise problem in Newark or Fremont? The last time
you trolled this group, it was Fremont.

For those not familiar with the Bay Area, Newark and Fremont are
both right on the final approach course to Oakland, next to Hayward,
and across the bay from San Carlos and Palo Alto.


I live in Newark, play in Fremont, and work in Sunnyvale.
I hardly ever hear plane noise in Sunnyvale, maybe once on hour
at best, mostly some traffic from Moffett Field, which I don't mind.

Believe me , there is private plane drone from about 9AM
to sundown every day in Newark, a little less in Fremont.

good for the economy.....might bring an early correction to the housing
bubble, Greenspam can relax now.